This page is documenting a discussion about a policy or project proposal that was REJECTED by the community by a vote of 3-2-6. Any additional information may or may not be listed at the bottom of this page. THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED, so please do not edit here. Thanks.

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

Policy: Transition to SVGEdit

Other Notes Edit

Vector images and SVG file format possess several key advantages over their raster counterparts, namely:

• It is not a pixel-based image file format and thus is scalable to any size without loss of sharpness (since it is resolution independent the file size is fixed).
• Vector representations are often of much smaller file size (it does not increase with resolution, but with actual content or detail).
• SVG is a much better fit with wiki editing because unlike raster images it is fairly straightforward to edit SVGs (you can easily change things, objects, shapes. The style (colors, outlines, gradients) as well as existing elements (contours, text, …)).

(taken from here) SkyBon 21:40, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Voting Edit

For Edit

1. ----ShardofTruth 22:42, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
2. See my comment. --D. (talk · contr) 00:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. As a nom. SkyBon 05:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Edit

1. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 22:05, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
2. --Xaero Dumort 01:07, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Against Edit

1. See comment below. Lancer1289 21:52, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
2. --Martolives 01:34, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. Against. If it's not broken, do not fix it. The wiki is doing just fine with .png images. Arbington 02:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. SVG is not a commonly used standard. JPGs and PNGs are much more common/familiar to ordinary users. — Teugene (Talk) 02:26, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. Against: Unnecessary and somewhat confusing. Ctrl alt belief 04:06, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
6. Against. PNCHNOUT 05:51, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Comments Edit

I can't even think about supporting this until every previous picture (that is at least one of equivalent nature) is already ready to be implemented and then it needs to be secured that all future images are going to definitely be done in SVG. That is going to be the tough/iffy part for me. Not everyone is going to know or have quick access to a program for vector images and capturing in vector images. This can lead to discouragement among our community. I've taken enough digital art classes to know the advantages of vector, but honestly, I don't see it it necessary for the site.--Xaero Dumort 22:00, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I oppose this for a number of reasons.

1. The first being it will be almost impossible to enforce. The current .png policy can be enforced much easier. .png images because they can be taken directly, or converted easily. .svg images can't.
2. .svg images are not widely known, as most people only know .jpg or .png.
3. Not every browser has support for .svg images and therefore some people may not be able to see them.
4. Not everyone knows how to take or use the images.
5. A separate piece of software is required to even take the images. Therefore placing more work on users to get "proper" images.
6. Mobile phones. Currently, few if none, have support for these kind of images.
7. I firmly believe that this is more a personal issue than anything else.

Therefore, I cannot support this policy in any way shape or form because of the various issues. Lancer1289 22:01, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

1. SVGs can be easily rendered into any raster or vector format.
2. They may not be widely known but how does it affect efficiency?
3. There is a reservation for .png in the proposal
4. Ditto
5. MediaWiki generates raster versions automatically. This point is irrelevant
6. And by personal issue you mean...?

Problems you highlighted are either irrelevant or non-existent altogether. SkyBon 22:08, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

With a concession for .png, then why even bother doing it in the first place? What is the advantage to the wiki?--Xaero Dumort 22:18, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Advantage is that where possible we will use vector. Current policy wording forbids vector at all. SkyBon 22:27, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. How does this improve the wiki experience? Why should anyone care? Like I said up above. I know and recognize vector images as superior, but why does that matter to the wiki as a device, not the community?--Xaero Dumort 22:31, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

And device serves the community. After all, if you don't care, just vote "for" and let the skilled do the rest. SkyBon 22:37, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Then I nominate you to do all the work. Since it is your proposal. Lancer1289 22:46, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

You can't back up the reasoning for such a move of image type. It's a simple question. Why should we do this? And it's hilarious that you think I would just vote "For" without having the facts or being show why I should. I understand vector images, I don't understand why you seem to think it needs to be changed on the wiki. You have provided no reasoning. Don't understand why babies shouldn't have guns? Just vote no and let them have guns! But you're right, I should change my vote.--Xaero Dumort 22:51, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

An excellent point Xaero. If you can't back up your reasoning as to why we should switch to a format that isn't widely used, then you are using very flawed reasoning. You just keep saying the same thing. Flash news, "it's better" isn't a reason. It is something politicians say when they want something done. From what I can see, it will place more burden on the admins and users to get "proper images", when the current policy works just fine. I see no valid reason to change at the present time. So either stop beating around the bush and answer the question, or stop saying "it's better".

And the "just vote "for" and let the skilled do the rest" is some of the most flawed reasoning I've seen. This affects the community, and if you can't justify your reason, then stop the proposal. So thanks for telling everyone to put more work on everyone else just because you want something. Lancer1289 22:57, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible or at least impractical to replace every image with svg equivalents and there is also no need to do this at all. But svgs can improve the quality and are more flexible than normal image formats which is why there are widely-used for complex forms (such as logos or flags for example). Not everyone has the means to create them, but this is also the case with normal screenshots (and removing HUD elements on them afterwards).
I think it should be allowed to upload them here, maybe the proposed amendment should be toned down to reflect that. At the moment it sounds like you should only upload svgs. --ShardofTruth 22:42, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out that uploading .svgs isn't illegal, but replacing a swath of formatted images without discussion is. Lancer1289 22:46, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

And here's another reason. This would completely make .jpgs illegal. I cannot see why anyone would support that policy. It is so honestly such a ridiculous policy that it isn't even funny. .jpg makes up for a large number of files on the internet and if we tell people they aren't allowed, then they will go elsewhere. .jpgs are in a lot of article, so all of a sudden, they are no longer permitted. Who's going to convert all the files? You? Since it would be your proposal, then you'd be the one doing the work.

You are missing the boat on several questions.

• Point 3: If they aren't widely known then how are people expected to use them? People don't upload .pngs now.
• Point 4: Ditto? That isn't ditto, that is dodging the point.
• Point 5: Thanks for completely dodging this issue entirely. Nice job
• Point 6: No it is not irrelevant, and if you knew tech like you say, then you wouldn't have said it was irrelevant. If the browser doesn’t have support, then it doesn't matter. It is the browser's job to render the image. No support, no image. This goes for some older browsers as well. Not everyone has the latest tech.

Therefore this proposal has a number of issues that I cannot support. Nor should anyone else if they read it carefully. Lancer1289 22:46, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

If uploading svgs isn't illegal than this problem is solved. SkyBon replaced only one image with a better but in same manner formated version of this file. You reverted the edit two times saying that pngs are preferred, preferred for technical reasons you can't seem to support or personal reasons not everybody shares. --ShardofTruth 23:50, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

And I actually addressed this earlier, and the reasons, but you didn't read it. Lancer1289 00:05, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think SkyBon's point about MediaWiki did not go through, so I'll explain it: MediaWiki will automatically render the .svg files to .png, so there will be no problem about users not being able to view them. You can verify this by right-clicking on one; the URL of the image will be a .png. For example, go to File:Ico-rosenkov.svg, and right-click on the image (the thumbnail) to obtain its url, which will be something like http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/thumb/4/45/Ico-rosenkov.svg/500px-Ico-rosenkov.svg.png. The file extension may be a bit misleading: while it says .svg, it's for users to know that the original file is a .svg, but it is actually rendered in .png. You may resize .svg to something smaller just by changing the number in the url. So if someone wants to use the .png version, they can do by this method (the link is provided on the file itself). You can always not use the .svg version if the .svg file isn't drawn properly. This is why a .svg version, which is going to be a bigger image, is preferable. The small logo can be resized to make it stand out a bit more on the article, and will not have a background. Moreover, it can be reused for other things if needed. .svg files are likely only going to be used for logos.

Just because some people don't know .svg does not mean they shouldn't be used. If users don't know how to make an image into a .svg (which should only be done for certain files), they should not be expected to do it—this is the same as being able to properly rip images or audio from the games, just as making templates on the wiki.

Regarding the proposal, I think it should be reworded to, "If a file can be rendered in .svg, this fileformat will be preferred." or something similar. I understood the intention of the proposal, but like ShardofTruth said, it sounds very restrictive. --D. (talk · contr) 00:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the purpose and how it would help the wiki D-day.--Xaero Dumort 01:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I've been testing some software recently that includes liberal use of large program icons in Ubuntu. Historically, Debian packages have used XPM for icons, because they diff easily and are compressed already via packaging. More recently, vector graphics have become popular in many places in the desktop and the web with today's bigger and higher DPI computer displays, because vector graphics are resolution independent. This makes for neat stuff, like quick launchers and desktop icons that scale cleanly with size:

SVGs are nice, but there's still a few reasons you might still use PNG. They're far more plentiful -- even I'm guilty of converting a Windows .ico into a PNG for an icon. And they take less disk space, since SVG is a verbose XML, while PNG is a compressed format. But when size really counts, it also possible to compress SVG with gzip. Not that this will matter when storing it for display on a Wiki...

But times are changing. Linux, and Ubuntu in particular, is moving into several different devices with different resolutions, aspect ratios and display sizes. Lots of technology is needed to cope with the diversity. SVG plays a role in coping resolution and size.

So what's holding widespread SVG on Ubuntu back? Disk space is a minor concern on the most constrained devices that Ubuntu could run on, but I think that's a wash when you start storing 5 sizes of icons versus one scalable graphic. Render time is an interesting question that depends on a host of factors. If we assume standard icon bitmap sizes, I would imagine it's a win for PNG. If we remove that restriction, you have to throw in the cost of scaling the PNG. Bryce Harrington, Ubuntu X developer and Inkscape founder, offered the following insight:

"svg supports advanced functionality like filters, gradients, etc. which can be processor intensive for some chipsetshowever a really trivial one - just some simple shapes of solid colors - could actually render faster filesystem I/O tends to be a major performance killer, so any optimization which allows you to avoid file I/O at the expense of processor or memory, tends to work out pretty well"

Bryce went on to suggest that tricks to rescale both PNG and SVG by raster lines were occasionally used in performance sensitive code. Gzip compressed SVG might help under specific situations, since it reduces I/O and you can pipeline some of it. But we're talking peanuts for icons, since most will fit within a single small contiguous extent. Wiki images and thumbs etc, not much different.

I work almost exclusively with Linux (Mint 12 'Lisa' 32-bit, dual boot Windows 7 64-bit) - layman's terms: the biggest problem I see is that svg. image formats aren't only going to take a lot of space, but will slow the pages down tremendously for various users without the technology to handle it. IMO - stick to png until svg is more popularised or something. Honestly, there is not that much difference between the two until you start working with images that utilise text and graphs and the like - blowing up a png with this weeks sales figures on the boardroom wall in png format can occasionally make people think their sight might be going :p

svg, at this stage, is unnecessary. In the world of internet and computing, where I operate both professionally and vastly, there is a common saying: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We also have another saying that parallels this one: If it ain't broke, don't break it. The system in place as is works just fine - why risk breaking it? Martolives 01:52, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

It seem like this is going to be a debate on principles, but I still think this case here is different than what you describe Martolives. MediaWiki provides the rendered image, as it provides the sized down images or thumbnails which are used in every article, your system does not have to work here. Secondly we aren't talking about widespread use but about particular cases where they provide an advantage over the regular png as pointed out so nicely by D-day. --ShardofTruth 02:09, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

They won't provide any advantage until they're compressed themselves, quite frankly. Complex graphics typically consist of large machine-generated data sets, so in order to display these images in a timely fashion with limited bandwidth, compress graphical file formats play a big role. PNG and SVG are two ways to display compressed images on the Internet. Portable Network Graphics (PNG) is an extensible file format for portable, lossless, well-compressed storage of raster images. Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) is a language that uses XML to create two-dimensional graphics. SVG files that have been gzip compressed are called SVGZ and typically result in files that are ten times smaller. SVGZ files work the same as SVG files but use less bandwidth and disk space. Which file format can make the most use of your disk space bandwidth? I'm not sure how MediaWiki is really set up - I'm sure it can handle it well, I'm sure most people's machines can handle it well, but IMO, .png works just fine. Especially considering it's already in a compressed format. I wouldn't support a change simply on the grounds that no change is necessary. Martolives 02:15, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course, I guess in the end it's a question of personal choice and the environment the images is used in. At the moment there may not be enough apparent reasons to prefer svgs to pngs, but there could be in the future depending on new design decisions and other overhauls. I just want to leave this door open. --ShardofTruth 02:41, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

The primary advantages are file size and scaleability. Is SVG smaller (compare this and this)? Check. Is SVG scaleable? Check. Is SVG easily modifiable via text editor? Check. So, plain SVGs have clear advantage over any raster format, be it PNG or JPEG. SkyBon 05:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

To simplify my thoughts, a friend of mine says it best: "SVG will make sense once no one is using IE8 anymore." Also, policy change in general is a bit dodgy - it's not up to anyone to demonstrate why svg is superior to png, because in many cases, it's not. Most cases, png is quite a bit on par, and if you know what you're doing with svg graphics, then you should know how to make vector edits to pngs as well, and vice versa, to get similar results. You should also know how to convert between the two. If not, then why are you using svg? No, policy change should only be considered when a flaw can be found within the policy itself, one that warrants necessary adjustments. Like I said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. My personal preference, having worked with computers, almost exclusively with Linux and Linux-based web design and security, for almost five years now, is png - at the end of the day, the real key is to simplify. But now that you all have my vote, and my somewhat-expert opinion (I won't say full expert because I know that this is a debate amongst experts, too), I will leave it at that. Martolives 02:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Even IE can display MediaWiki generated PNGs. SkyBon 05:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

It was a tech joke, SkyBon. I'm not starting a new debate, I'm merely fortifying the point that what's already in place is working just fine. Why change it?